The Reform of South Africa’s Anti-Dumping Regime

Niel Joubert*

Disclaimer:
Opinions expressed in the case studies and any errors or omissions
therein are the responsibility of their authors and not of the
editors of this volume or of the institutions with which they are
affiliated. The authors of the case studies wish to disassociate the
institutions with which they are associated from opinions expressed
in the case studies and from any errors or omission therein.

This case study examines the development and reform of South Africa’s
anti-dumping regime as an example of a country’s participation in the
WTO. The long history of the use of trade remedies by South Africa
illustrates the fact that developing countries can successfully
participate in the global trading system. By using the WTO’s
Anti-dumping Agreement (ADA) as a model for its own anti-dumping system,
South Africa also serves as an example of how a country can make use of
WTO instruments to ensure that its domestic legislation is complying with
its international obligations.

The first section takes a brief look at the history of the use of trade
remedies in South Africa, international developments on anti-dumping rules
and the various legislative changes South Africa has undertaken in the
past century that have helped shape its current anti-dumping system. It
examines the factors that necessitated the reform of the South African
anti-dumping regime, and briefly discusses the impact of the change in
regional dynamics on the anti-dumping process in South Africa.

Section 2 gives an overview of the government, business and civil society
players involved in the process of reforming the South African
anti-dumping system. It also briefly touches on the roles of the various
parties responsible for the administration of the system in the
pre-apartheid and post-apartheid periods.

Section 3 identifies the challenges faced by these different players in
the process of reforming the existing anti-dumping regime. Special
attention is given to the impact of regional developments on the progress
of South Africa’s reform. It evaluates the suitability of the new regime
that is currently being put into place and the rationale behind the design
of the new system to administer anti-dumping duties. Finally, it takes a
look at whether the interests and concerns of various stakeholders were
adequately addressed in the new system.

Section 4 concludes the study by reflecting on the process South Africa
has been through and identifying the experience that can be transferred to
other countries. This section argues that proper consultations between
government and the various national stakeholders are important for
effective policy-making.

I. The problem in context

The history of the use of trade remedies in South Africa

South Africa is one of the earliest users of trade remedies in the
world. The first references to such remedies as anti-dumping actions,
subsidies and countervailing actions can be found in section 8 of the
Customs Tariff Act of 1914.(1) These remedies were administered by the then
Customs Department, which later became the South African Revenue Service
(SARS).(2)

The responsibility for dealing with anti-dumping remedies was taken
over by the Board on Trade and Industries (BTI) in September 1923. South
Africa was a very early and prolific user of anti-dumping measures; in
the period between 1921 and 1947 more than 90 anti-dumping and
countervailing investigations were undertaken, while another 818
investigations were undertaken between 1948 and October 2001.(3) The exact
number of anti-dumping investigations cannot be ascertained, as prior to
1992 no distinction was made between anti-dumping and countervailing
investigations. The first anti-dumping investigation considered the
imposition of anti-dumping duties on cement.

At the time of the negotiation of the International Trade
Organization (ITO) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
in the 1940s, anti-dumping as a trade remedy was a well-known and
accepted practice, and was included in the GATT of 1947 as Article VI:

The Contracting Parties recognize that dumping, by which the products
of one country are introduced into the commerce of another country at
less than the normal value of the products, is to be condemned if it
causes or threatens to cause material injury to an established industry
in the territory of a contracting party or materially retards the
establishment of a domestic industry.

As Article VI only included some basic rules for the determination
and imposition of anti-dumping duties, contracting parties to the GATT
agreed to its review. This led to agreement on the Anti-dumping Code (to
which South Africa was not a signatory) in the Kennedy Round of
multilateral trade negotiations that ran from 1963 to 1967, which in
turn was replaced by the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Anti-dumping Agreement)
in the Tokyo Round ending in 1979.

In 1977 the BTI recommended in its annual report that all
anti-dumping duties in place in South Africa should be withdrawn as of 1
January 1978. They argued that these measures had been in place for such
a long time that their removal would not pose any threat to South
African industries, and that any disruptive competition could be
addressed through the use of formula duties.(4) In the five years leading
up to the recommendation the board had only twice approved the
imposition of anti-dumping duties. The decrease in the use of
anti-dumping measures during the 1970s and 1980s is explained by the
fact that South African producers were protected by very high tariff
barriers.(5) Trade sanctions imposed on South Africa because of its
apartheid policies also encouraged the government to provide protection
to industries it considered to be of ‘strategic’ importance.(6) Import
surcharges, among other things, were used for this purpose and
diminished the need for anti-dumping measures.

This situation led to the decision by South Africa’s then Minister
of Trade and Industry to remove all existing anti-dumping duties as of 1
January 1978, as he considered that the high tariffs in place at the
time provided sufficient protection for domestic companies.(7) All
incidents of disruptive competition after 1978 were therefore treated as
tariff cases. Whenever the prices of certain imports would drop below a
specific point, a formula duty would apply which effectively would
increase to a pre-determined level the price of the imported goods.(8)

The Board on Tariffs and Trade Act replaced the BTI with the Board on
Tariffs and Trade (BTT) in September 1986.(9) In 1992 a Directorate of
Dumping Investigations was established within the Department of Trade
and Industry (DTI) to assist the BTT by conducting anti-dumping and
countervailing investigations on its behalf.(10) The BTT published a ‘Guide
to the Policy and Procedure with regard to Action against Unfair
International Trade Practices: Dumping, Subsidies and other forms of
Disruptive Competition’ in 1992. This was followed by a second guide
in 1995 entitled ‘Guide to the Policy and Procedure with Regard to
Action against Unfair International Trade Practices: Dumping and
Subsidized Export’. The latter guide was, however, withdrawn from the
South African Customs Union (SACU) in 1996.(11)

South Africa returned to the global community in the early 1990s
after facing decades of trade sanctions. Its transformation to a
democracy led to the removal of these sanctions. It started opening its
economy to become more competitive and to integrate into the world
economy. South Africa actively participated in the Uruguay Round of
trade negotiations and was a founding member of the WTO.

South Africa embarked on a process of rapid liberalization by
introducing tariff offers aligned with those of developed countries.
This left domestic firms facing increased competition from both fair and
unfair international trade. South Africa’s average most favoured
nation (MFN) tariff rates for all goods fell from over 14% in 1996 to 8%
in 2001; the MFN rates for industrial goods also fell by 50% and 55% for
textiles and clothing respectively over the same period. The weighted
average MFN tariff rate came down from a level of 8.6% in 1996 to 5% in
2001.(12)

With tariff protection falling away, trade remedies such as
anti-dumping and countervailing measures became increasingly important
for domestic producers, to protect them from the rise in imports. This
led to a sharp increase in South Africa’s application of trade
remedies, in particular anti-dumping measures. South Africa reported
initiating 157 anti-dumping investigations and applying 106 anti-dumping
measures between 1 January 1995 and 30 June 2002.(13) This makes it the
fifth-largest user of anti-dumping actions (after the United States, the
European Union (EU), India and Argentina).(14)

By joining the WTO South Africa became a party to all WTO agreements,
including the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994
(the Anti-dumping Agreement). Article VI of GATT 1994 provides for the
right of contracting parties to apply anti-dumping measures, that is
measures against imports of a product at an export price below its ‘normal
value’ (usually the price of the product in the domestic market of the
exporting country) if such dumped imports cause injury to a domestic
industry in the territory of the importing country. Even though all the
WTO agreements were ratified by the South African Parliament, they do
not form part of South African public law, as they were never
promulgated. The South African Constitution, however, explicitly states
that international agreements should be used as reference and guidelines
in the interpretation of domestic laws.(15)

Article 1 of the ADA requires that members will only apply
anti-dumping measures under the circumstances provided for in Article VI
of GATT 1994 and only after investigations which have been initiated and
conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement. The ADA
provides detailed rules in relation to the method of determining whether
a product is dumped; the criteria to be taken into account in a
determination that dumped imports cause injury to a domestic industry;
the procedures to be followed in initiating and conducting anti-dumping
investigations; and the implementation and duration of anti-dumping
measures. Where a member country institutes measures that are not in
accordance with the WTO rules, these measures are subject to dispute
resolution in the WTO.

Article 16 of the ADA establishes the Committee on Anti-dumping
Practices (CADP). It requires members to notify the Committee
immediately of all preliminary and final actions taken in anti-dumping
investigations and to submit semi-annual reports of any anti-dumping
actions taken in the previous six months.(16) Article 18(4) furthermore
requires WTO members to bring their laws, regulations and administrative
procedures into conformity with the ADA by the date of entry into force
of the Agreement.(17) Under Article 18.5, members are also required to
notify the CADP of any changes in their anti-dumping laws and
regulations and in the administration of these laws and regulations.

Already in 1994 South Africa’s National Economic Forum (NEF)
— a
tripartite body consisting of representatives from business, government
and labour — stressed the need for national legislation on anti-dumping
and countervailing measures and the need to establish an anti-dumping
authority.(18)

The Board Amendment Act of 1995 made small amendments to South
African legislation in an effort to bring the country’s anti-dumping
regime more in line with the ADA.(19) The definition of dumping was changed
to correspond with the definition of dumping in the ADA, and certain new
concepts such as ‘normal value’ were introduced. It still, however,
did not provide for any procedural framework or regulations for the
conducting of anti-dumping investigations. As mentioned earlier, the BTT
did publish a guide on anti-dumping procedures in 1995, but it was
withdrawn in 1996.(20)

With the growing use of anti-dumping measures, South Africa started
experiencing increased pressure from other WTO members to bring its
legislation and the administration of these measures in line with the
ADA. In April 1996 South Africa announced in the WTO Committee on
Anti-dumping Practices that it intended to amend its legislation on
anti-dumping to ensure its compliance with the relevant WTO agreements.(21)

The South African Ministry of Trade and Industry subsequently
instructed the BTT to investigate the restructuring of the South African
anti-dumping regime. Small amendments were made to existing legislation
in 1997 to give the minister the power to make regulations on trade
remedies and to provide for the application of provisional safeguard
measures.(22)

Professor Colin McCarthy, acting head of the International Trade
Administration Commission (ITAC), highlighted the fact that South Africa
had always done its best to act in strict conformity with the WTO rules
in conducting anti-dumping investigations; the requirements of Article
VI of GATT and the ADA, especially the notice requirements, have always
been strictly adhered to.(23) Although this might have been the case in
practice, South Africa’s existing legislation did not fully reflect
South Africa’s obligations under GATT 1994 and the WTO. The Department
of Trade and Industry’s invitation for comments on South Africa’s
draft anti-dumping regulations stressed the fact that proper legislation
and regulations were required to inform all stakeholders of the
substance and the procedures involved in anti-dumping investigations.(24)

The restructuring of the anti-dumping regime finally became a reality
with publication of the International Trade Administration (ITA) Act on
22 January 2003, creating a new body, the International Trade
Administration Committee (ITAC), for the administration of trade
remedies within South Africa. This was followed by the promulgation of
detailed anti-dumping regulations in November 2003 to guide ITAC in
conducting its anti-dumping investigations.

South Africa concluded in 1999 a free trade agreement
— the Trade,
Development and Co-operation Agreement (TDCA) — with the EU that
provisionally entered into force on 1 January 2000. It also entered into
a free trade agreement with eleven members of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) on 1 September 2000 by becoming a member of
the SADC Trade Protocol. These free trade agreements provide
preferential access to the South African market for all EU and SADC
member states, and bring with them increased competition for domestic
producers. Both these agreements contain provisions on anti-dumping,
countervailing and safeguard measures.

South Africa is a member of SACU together with Botswana, Lesotho,
Namibia and Swaziland (BLNS countries). These countries signed a new
SACU Agreement in 2002 that entered into force on 15 July 2004.
Negotiations for this agreement were officially launched soon after
South Africa elected its first democratic government in 1994. The aim
was to democratize SACU and to create institutions that would enable the
BLNS countries to participate more fully in the decision-making
processes in the customs union.

The new SACU Agreement has important implications for the
anti-dumping regime within the customs union. It changed the way in
which tariff decisions, including anti-dumping tariffs, are made, and it
also requires member states to develop legislation on contingency trade
remedies such as anti-dumping for the region, and to establish national
bodies to administer these remedies within the different countries.

As mentioned above, South Africa enacted the ITA Act in January 2003.(25)
Its aim is to provide an institutional basis for the conduct of trade
policy and the application of customs tariffs in line with South Africa’s
obligations under international agreements, that is agreements under the
WTO, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and SACU. We take
a more detailed look below at the implications of this change in the
administration of international trade affairs in South Africa.

II. The local and external players and their roles

Anti-dumping in South Africa under the 1996 SACU Agreement

Under the 1996 SACU Agreement, South Africa was solely responsible
for the setting of customs duties, as well as any anti-dumping,
countervailing and safeguard measures for the customs union. As members
of the customs union BLNS countries were obliged to apply these
measures, although they were not always beneficial to the BLNS countries
since the relevant items were mostly not produced by their domestic
industries.

As the body in South Africa responsible for the determination of
customs duties and the administration of anti-dumping measures,(26) the BTT
initiated anti-dumping investigations at the request of a domestic
industry within SACU. Importers, exporters and foreign producers would
then be provided with an opportunity to submit information for
consideration in any such investigation. After conducting the
investigation the BTT would make a recommendation to the South African
Minister of Trade and Industry, and that ministry would then request the
Ministry of Finance to impose anti-dumping duties. In 1992 a Directorate
for Dumping Investigations was established within the Department of
Trade and Industry to assist the BTT by conducting anti-dumping and
countervailing investigations on its behalf. As the board never had a
set of published regulations to work from, it made use of its enabling
legislation — Article VI of GATT and the ADA — to conduct its
investigations.

ITAC was established on 1 June 2003 by the ITA Act. ITAC replaced the
BTT and will act as South Africa’s national body in terms of Article
14 of the 2002 SACU Agreement. It currently acts as the tariff body for
the whole of SACU and is responsible for previous BTT functions such as
the investigation and evaluation of applications for the amendment of
customs duties, duty and tax concessions, and import and export
controls, and for administering anti-dumping, safeguard and
countervailing measures.

The 2002 SACU Agreement provides for a number of new institutions for
the customs union. SACU will now have a Council of Ministers, a
Secretariat (based in Windhoek, Namibia), a Tariff Board, a Tribunal, a
Customs Union Commission and a number of technical committees. When
South Africa wants to impose an anti-dumping measure, ITAC is
responsible for conducting the investigation, and under the new SACU
Agreement, ITAC is now obliged to make any recommendations directly to
the SACU Tariff Board.

The Tariff Board will be a supra-national SACU institution,
consisting of experts drawn from member states. It will make its own
recommendation to the council based on that of the national body. The
final decision will then lie with the Council of Ministers, comprising
at least one minister from each member state. Council decisions are then
referred back to the member states for implementation. As the new SACU
Agreement is still far from being fully implemented, member states have
agreed upon an interim solution. The current situation is discussed in
more detail in section 3 below.

The domestic adoption of the International Trade Administration (ITA)
Act and the SACU Agreement back to top

The ITA Act had to be adopted by Parliament for it to become law in
South Africa. A series of briefings and public hearings were held
jointly by the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry
and the Economic Affairs Select Committee to explain the rationale
behind the Act to stakeholders and to address their concerns.
Submissions were received from the South African Chamber of Business (SACOB)
on behalf of the private sector and from the Congress of South African
Trade Unions (COSATU) on behalf of organized labour. After extensive
consultations and debates both inside and outside Parliament, the bill
was passed in November 2003.

The 2002 SACU Agreement had to be ratified by Parliament before it
could enter into force in South Africa, as required by section 231 of
the South African Constitution.(27) The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on
Trade and Industry again held a number of briefings and public hearings
to give all stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the proposed
ratification. Written submissions were received from SACOB, the Trade
Law Centre for Southern Africa (Tralac), academics, the National
Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), COSATU and from Agri-SA
on behalf of agricultural producers.

Nedlac submitted its report after holding discussions in its Trade
and Industry Chamber on both the new SACU Agreement and the ITA Act.
Nedlac is South Africa’s primary institution for social dialogue and
organizes exchanges between the business community, government, trade
unions and civil society on issues of social and economic policy.(28) Nedlac
has to consider all proposed labour legislation before it is introduced
into Parliament, as well as any legislation that may have a significant
impact on social and economic policy.(29) It is also the primary forum for
discussion on all trade agreements. Nedlac provides a platform on a
national level for these different stakeholders to reach consensus on
these issues. The aim is to make economic decision-making more inclusive
and to promote the goals of economic growth and social equity. Other
chambers in which Nedlac’s work is conducted are the Labour Market
Chamber, the Development Chamber and the Public Finance and Monetary
Policy Chamber.

Nedlac’s predecessor, the NEF, has also played a very important
role in the formulation of South Africa’s policies. It provided
valuable inputs in the determination of South Africa’s tariff offers
to other WTO members when South Africa joined the WTO in 1995. Since
then the effectiveness of Nedlac in the formulation of policies has been
in steady decline. Nedlac needs to be refocused and reorganized and also
to be better resourced.

III. Challenges faced and the outcome

Defending South Africa’s anti-dumping
legislation in the WTO

The promulgation of the ITA Act and the
anti-dumping regulations for ITAC was an attempt to bring South Africa’s
anti-dumping legislation in line with the requirements of the WTO.(30)
ITAC published the draft anti-dumping regulations for public comment in
March 2003. It used the ADA as a model and it looked at the anti-dumping
regimes of the EU, the United States, New Zealand and Australia as
examples in drafting the regulations.(31)
ITAC’s investigations are therefore based on the ADA, while the
regulations serve as a procedural guide. Inputs on the draft regulations
were received from several lawyers from Canada, the United States and
New Zealand, as well as local lawyers and academics. According to
Professor McCarthy the draft regulations were discussed and commented on
in detail within ITAC as well.(32)
The regulations in their final form were approved by the Minister of
Trade and Industry on 12 November 2003.

As required by Article 18(5) of the ADA the
anti-dumping regulations, together with the new International Trade
Administration Act were notified to the WTO’s Committee on
Anti-dumping Practices (CADP) on 20 January 2004.(33)
These notifications included the full texts of the relevant laws and
regulations, and are, like other official WTO documents, made available
by the WTO to members in all three WTO languages for purposes of the
review.(34)

The new legislation and regulations were
subject to review in the CADP. This review takes the form of written
questions from other members; questions can also be put to the notifying
country during the meeting of the CADP. ITAC had to provide satisfactory
written answers to all these questions and ITAC officials had to appear
before the CADP to address additional questions put forward by members.(35)
Written questions were submitted by the EU, the United States and
Venezuela, with additional questions tabled in the CADP by Turkey. South
Africa successfully defended its new legislation and regulations in the
CADP by providing members with satisfactory answers and explanations
addressing all their noted concerns.

The new SACU institutions have not all been
established. The Secretariat is currently in the process of being set up
in Windhoek, Namibia. The Council of Ministers exists ipso facto, but
the Tariff Board, the Tribunal and the Customs Union Commission still
need to be established. South Africa is also the only member state of
SACU that has established a national body to date. According to
Professor McCarthy it is important for the BLNS countries to establish
these bodies, as only they can make recommendations through to the SACU
Tariff Board. The Tariff Board will not be able to function unless such
national bodies are in place. In the light of these difficulties, the
SACU Council of Ministers requested ITAC on 1 July 2004 to continue with
the administration of anti-dumping investigations for an interim period
of twelve months. The only proviso was that all anti-dumping
investigations should be undertaken in consultation with the BLNS
countries.(36)

One of the main objectives of the new SACU
Agreement is to democratize the decision-making process within the
customs union. The final decision on matters such as anti-dumping duties
lies with SACU’s supreme decision-making mechanism, the Council of
Ministers. This means that decisions by all SACU institutions ‘shall
be made by consensus’.(37)
This amounts to a right of veto for member states; as there are only
five this should facilitate consensus, but they have divergent
interests.(38)

This change in the process of imposing
anti-dumping duties has been a cause of serious concern to various
stakeholders in South Africa. Business and labour associations have
raised several issues during the public hearings on the ITAC Bill
regarding the new SACU institutions, particularly as these would affect
the functioning of ITAC.(39)
The South African Chamber of Business (SACOB) pointed out in its
submission to Parliament that it remains concerned about potential
delays in decision-making in other SACU member states with regard to
anti-dumping and other trade remedies, due to the cumbersome and
time-consuming decision-making structure. The competitiveness of South
African industry and that of the region is highly dependent on the speed
of decision-making, especially in these times of increased trade
liberalization and globalization.(40)

This issue was also taken into account in the
drafting of the anti-dumping regulations for ITAC, as the ADA prescribes
strict time periods for the conducting of anti-dumping investigations.
The regulations therefore include stricter timelines for the allowed
duration of investigations.

ITAC aims to complete its investigations
within twelve months, although the anti-dumping regulations allow
investigations to take up to eighteen months.(41)
In practice these deadlines are often missed. Colin McCarthy has pointed
out that there are valid reasons for this: the Commission plays an
active role in these investigations; it often has to refer submissions
back to the parties involved when it is not entirely happy with the
contents, and this creates delays. Interested parties also take maximum
advantage of the opportunity to ask for a postponement.(42)
SACU’s new decision-making process is not yet in place; no one has,
therefore, had the opportunity to evaluate its effectiveness. We shall
have to wait and see whether or not the concerns about the process are
justified.

IV. Lessons for
others

Countries should always keep in mind that it
is the private sector that trades, not governments. A common problem
faced by all countries is a lack of proper consultation between
government and stakeholders to ensure that their concerns are addressed
when government determines trade policies. It is important that a
government establish opportunities for public-private dialogue in order
to involve all spheres of society in its decision-making processes, as
policy-making cannot take place in a vacuum.

South Africa has a number of existing national
frameworks in place, such as Nedlac and the parliamentary hearings
described above, to ensure the effective participation of different
stakeholders in the legislative process. The question is, however,
whether this amounts to effective consultations and to what extent
government takes note of stakeholders’ concerns. In SACOB’s
submission to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on the new SACU
Agreement, it expressed concern that the parliamentary hearings only
served to rubber stamp something which had already been decided upon. It
based this concern on the fact that very few of business’s concerns on
the draft SACU Agreement had been taken into account in the final
Agreement signed by the government.

While these are legitimate concerns, it must
be remembered that the SACU Agreement is a product of lengthy
negotiations with other member states and that this limits the
government on what it can seek to have included in the Agreement. A need
exists for better consultations between government and stakeholders.
According to Marion Hummel, SACOB’s international trade and investment
executive, SACOB is often not given sufficient time by government to
consider and comment on important issues affecting business.(43)
SACOB, along with other organizations, has capacity constraints and
cannot give quality inputs without adequate time for research and
discussions.

The whole policy-making process needs to take
more of a bottom-up approach. There should be a free flow of information
between government and stakeholders, as they cannot anticipate all
upcoming issues. The government should also move away from its
individual approach to business issues. Business cannot be neatly
divided into sectors, as this often leads to cross-cutting issues being
disregarded.

Discussions with stakeholders should not only
focus on micro issues, but also strive to include issues that will
affect the whole economy. Currently there is a lack of strategic multi-sectoral
planning by business and government in South Africa. This should include
debate on South Africa’s national trade policy. The various business
sectors have to become more involved. The recent restructuring of
business associations in South Africa has had a negative impact on this
process of co-operation, but this should now improve.

The use of the ADA as a model for South Africa’s
legislation is an example of how a country can make use of WTO
instruments to ensure that it complies with its WTO obligations.
Countries can adjust these instruments to suit their various needs
without having to reinvent the wheel. The history of the use of
anti-dumping measures by South Africa and the whole process it has
undergone, both domestically and in the WTO, shows that developing
countries can successfully participate in the world trading system.

NOTES:1.- Act 26 of 1914. The Act also referred to ‘subsidies’
and ‘countervailing action’ as ‘bounties’ and ‘bounty
anti-dumping duties’. back to text2.- International Trade Centre (ITC) (2003), ‘Business
Guide to Trade Remedies in South Africa and the Southern African Customs
Union’. back to text3.- Gustav F. Brink (2002), Anti-dumping
and Countervailing Investigations in South Africa: A Practitioner’s
Guide to the Practice and Procedures of the Board on Tariffs and Trade.back to text4.- ITC (2003), p. 2. back to text5.- Brink (2002), p. 3. back to text6.- Barral et al. (2004), ‘Anti-dumping in
Brazil, China, India and South Africa — Rules, Trends and Causes’, p.
49. National Board of Trade, Sweden. back to text7.- Brink (2002), p. 4. back to text8.- Interview with Gustav Brink, director,
trade remedies policy, ITAC, 31 Aug. 2004. back to text9.- Act 107 of 1986. back to text10.- Board on Tariffs and Trade Amendment Act
1992 (Act 60 1992) and the Customs and Excise Amendment Act 1992 (Act 61
1992). back to text11.- ITC (2003), p. 2. back to text12.- Barral et al. (2004), p. 51. back to text13.- See Annex I. back to text14.- WTO (2002). SACU Trade Policy Review,
WT/TPR/S/114 ,
p. 34. back to text15.- ITC (2003), p. 3. back to text16.- Art. 16(4) of Anti-dumping Agreement. back to text17.- The Anti-dumping Agreement, as with all
the other WTO agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round, came into
force on 1 Jan. 2005. back to text18.- The NEF was replaced by Nedlac on 18 Feb.
1995. See further below for a discussion of Nedlac. Interview with
Brink. back to text19.- Brink (2002), p. 5. back to text20.- ‘Guide to the Policy and Procedure with
Regard to Action against Unfair International Trade Practices: Dumping
and Subsidized Export’. back to text21.- WTO SACU Trade Policy Review p. 33,
WT/TPR/S/114.
Under the 1969 SACU Agreement, South Africa’s customs tariffs and
legislation on trade remedies were directly applicable to all SACU
countries. back to text22.- ITC (2003), p. 4. back to text23.- Interview with Professor Colin McCarthy,
acting head of ITAC, 31 Aug. 2004. back to text24.- Comments on anti-dumping law invited, 4
April 2003, Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa,
www.tralac.org. back to text25.- Act 71 of 2002. back to text26.- Board on Tariffs and Trade Act, Act 107
of 1986. back to text27.- Act 108 of 1996. back to text28.- Nedlac’s website:
www.nedlac.org.za. back to text29.- Ss. 4(1)(c) and (d) Nedlac Constitution.
back to text30.- Comments invited on law on 4 April 2003,
Trade Law Centre for Southern Africa,
www.tralac.org. back to text31.- Interview with McCarthy. back to text32.- Interview with McCarthy. back to text33.- WTO
G/ADP/N/1/ZAF/2, 20 Jan. 2004. The
official WTO languages are English, French and Spanish. back to text34.- Interview with Brink. back to text35.- For the detailed questions and answers,
see WTO documents
G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/2,
G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/4,
G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/3,
G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/5 and
G/ADP/Q1/ZAF/1. back to text36.- Interview with McCarthy. back to text37.- Art. 17, SACU Agreement 2002. back to text38.- Gerhard Erasmus (2004), ‘New
SACUInstitutions: Prospects for Regional Integration’, available at
www.tralac.org, p. 5. back to text39.- Briefing on the Southern African Customs
Union Agreement, Trade And Industry Portfolio Committee, 16 April 2003. back to text40.- Comments by SACOB on the Proposed
Ratification of the Final SACU Agreement by South Africa, November 2003,
para. 2.2. back to text41.- Reg. 20, ITAC anti-dumping regulations. back to text42.- Interview with McCarthy. back to text43.- Interview with Marion Hummel,
international trade and investment executive, SACOB. back to text